Category Archives: Disability Rights

Accessible elections

Local government elections are done and dusted for another three years, and disabled people who care about such things will start putting their energy into making sure next year’s parliamentary elections are more accessible than the last,

The lack of accessibility to local government elections is appalling, especially in comparison with parliamentary elections, and they are far from universally accessible. Wellington City is the only local body that seems to have made any effort at all, minimalist, but still a start. It is no wonder that disabled people struggle to get their voices heard over such matters as accessible transport and the built environment, access to quality health care and general recognition as part of their local communities when they have so little access to the political processes that govern them.

I have always voted in national parliamentary elections except when I have been out of the country. I have stressed to my daughters and disabled people to whom I have taught self-advocacy the importance of taking part in the precious democratic process that people have died to establish and protect.

But I have to admit to not always voting in local government elections, despite the huge influence local government has on the daily lives of everyone, including disabled people. Like many others I suspect I find the process complex and confusing, I have often never heard of some of the people involved, and the process is convoluted and inaccessible.

Sadly many of those not even registered to vote in the new super-city Auckland and elsewhere will be disabled people.

It is not difficult to know why there is such a lack of interest. It is partly a combination of cynicism and apathy – a “plague on all your houses” attitude. But a strong contributing factor is that our electoral and political systems are fundamentally inaccessible. I don’t mean the voting process itself as much as the process leading up to polling day.

I have never seen or heard of any candidate material in alternative formats, or of any meetings with Sign Language interpreters. So it is difficult to know how many disabled people are excluded from the voting process.

There are many areas where the twenty percent of New Zealanders with disabilities could, and should be influencing the political system, but first we need proper access to the information during the process. As for standing as candidates, there are very few success stories.

There is an irony that political parties, as private entities are exempt from the Human Rights Act and don’t have to provide access. This is a fundamental flaw in our human rights system, as a friend of mine found when one of our two major political parties felt that they were under no obligation to provide material in an accessible format. Yet access to the political system and public life is a fundamental civil and political right.

But just because an activity is not forbidden by law, and is, theoretically, allowed it does not mean it actually happens. It cannot therefore be assumed that disabled people’s civil and political rights are anywhere near being realised in New Zealand when it comes to voting and participating in local governance.

I suspect the situation won’t change too much without a lot of effort from disabled people.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Information Accessibility, Web Accessibility

Inclusion tourism

Compelling demographics, the need for industry engagement and for better auditing processes, and the glaring absence of accommodation providers were all features of New Zealand’s first Access Tourism conference.

But I was particularly interested in the claim by Bill Forrester that the issue is not so much accessible infrastructure as the way accessible tourism is not valued by both operators and promoters alike. He talked about going beyond grudgingly ‘accommodating’ disabled people to welcoming them and including them as business as usual in very real and tangible ways, to the point where statistics about their numbers were not collected.

This has set me thinking about the application of this perspective on access to our tourism industry and other areas of daily life, and I don’t just mean the built environment. This attitude persists despite some compelling figures. Twenty percent of the New Zealand population live with disability. By 2031 people over 65 will be 26% of the population with an accompanying increase in the disability rate. This is a significant market by anyone’s reckoning, even allowing for some overlap.  In countries which are our main source of tourists the rapidly ageing population is even more marked.

Dr Sandra Rhodda, access tourism researcher says of the revenue value of the access tourism market, “In Canada, for example, pwds account for $25 billion in consumer spending and in Australia the accessible tourism market is believed to be worth around $4.8bn to the Australian economy.”

Is this blinkered attitude because the non-disabled youth market is cooler, sexier and more glamorous for the advertising industry, the marketers and the PR people, who seem to me to be mostly under 40, or is it simply that older and disabled people have been invisible for so long that it is hard to take us seriously, even when we have the dosh. Perhaps it is simply a failure of the imagination.

The only products marketed to people over fifty seem to be rest homes, erectile dysfunction medication, mobility scooters, anti-ageing creams and laxative drinks. Well whoop de do!

Perhaps the providers and marketers of tourism will wake up just in time to watch the tourist dollars disappearing over the horizon to more welcoming destinations.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Inclusion, Information Accessibility, Travel, Web Accessibility

Victory for People First

Last year TV one’s Breakfast presenter Paul Henry made remarks that were offensive to disabled people, but in particular to members of People First, people with learning disabilities.  The resulting complaints process has vindicated their concern. The text of the statement broadcast by TV One is not an apology, and it doesn’t mention Paul Henry’s name. But the decision made by the Broadcasting Standards Authority is significant and worth reading in full.

It recognises that the denigration of Susan Boyle, while not harming her, did harm others, which is significant.

Here is the minimalist statement from Television New Zealand. (Paul Henry’s name is included in brackets.)

“Last year during ‘What’s In The Mags’, Breakfast screened comments about the singer Susan Boyle. The comments were made by a Breakfast presenter [Paul Henry] and concerned Ms Boyle’s intellectual disability.

TVNZ upheld viewers’ complaints that the comments breached the broadcasting standard requiring Good Taste and Decency. The presenter [Paul Henry] also made a public statement saying he had not intended to cause offence.

Eleven complainants were not satisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, and referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

The Authority agreed with the complainants, finding that TVNZ had taken insufficient action to remedy the breach of standards. It noted that no statement or apology had been made on the Breakfast programme, and that the presenter’s [Paul Henry's] public statement was inconsistent with his comments and behaviour in the item.

The Authority said that to mock and belittle a person on account of her intellectual disability was contrary to common decency and a clear breach of the Good Taste and Decency standard.

The Authority ordered Television New Zealand to broadcast this statement.”

Thanks to the Human Rights Commission for distributing the text of the statement in their disability newsletter Manahau. (Manahau is well worth the free subscription, particularly if you want to keep up to date on human rights and disability.)

Mediawatch on Radio NZ took the case seriously enough to discuss implications of the case in depth on its Sunday morning programme. (August 1)

The action taken by disabled people and their supporters using complaints tools to stand up for their rights is a practical example of rights in action. They have won, and in winning have made a difference for everyone.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Media

Disabled people, burden or benefit to the nation?

Two weeks ago I went to a two day forum run by the Welfare Working Group, and ever since I have been thinking about what I heard there and feeling a growing concern for the future of our welfare system.

Many of the presenters took a very statistical and quantitative approach to what they saw as the ‘problem’ of growing numbers of people on benefits. Taking such a “siloed” approach to the issue seems to me to be counter-productive. One of the reasons for the increase in numbers on benefits is the increasing economic and social inequality in New Zealand society. Without tackling that the problem will never be solved without draconian measures that will bring other side effects such as increasing crime, or the undermining of our precious democracy.

Since I am more familiar with disability issues I will write about disabled people. Disabled people face entrenched and widespread discrimination in education and employment, and particular groups of disabled people struggle to be recognised as valued and contributing members of society. Despite their best efforts they are often among the poorest people. The costs of living with disability, both the financial and opportunity costs are not understood well within the welfare system.

But most of all disabled people are often seen as a burden, a cost to be ‘carried’ by society, rather than a group of people with something to offer, on the asset side of the ledger. What is valued gets counted and invested in. What is not valued and invested in is discounted.

1 Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights